physical attractiveness

• explaining importance of physical attractiveness (1)

  • psychologists have wondered why physical attractivness is so important in forming relationships
  • evolutionary theory seems to explain it well
  • shackelford and lanen (1997) found people with symmetrical faces are more attractive
  • this is because it may be an hinest signal of genetic fitness
• explaining importance of physical attractiveness (2)

  • people are attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose (trigger protective/caring instinct)
  • McNulty et al (2008) found evidence that the initial attractiveness that brought the partners together continued to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage for several years
• the halo effect

  • we have preconcieved ideas about personality traits attractive people must have and they are universally positive
  • physical attractiveness stereotypes
  • karen dion et al (1972) 'what is beautiful good for?'
  • dion found physical attractive people are consistently rated at kind, strong, socialable + successful compared to unattractive people
  • the belief that good looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us
  • we begin to have a self fulfilling prophecy for this
• what makes people attractive?

  • buss' research demonstrated men place a significant importance level of physical attractiveness when choosing a mate
  • female appearance give cues on health + fertility
  • is also just as important when women choose a partner
  • however rely on physical attractiveness for a short-term relationship
  • unlike men, attractiveness is less important for long-term relationships
• the 'matching hypothesis'

  • walster and walster (1969) claim individiuals seek romantic relationships whose social desirability roughly equals their own
  • when choosing a partner:
  • individuals asses their own 'value'
  • they then choose a potential partner from available candidates that would be most likely to attracted to them
• 'matching hypothesis' (2)

  • instead of going for the most attractive option, people seek out those who are most similar to themselves
  • this maximises the chance of success
  • also minimises the chance of embarrassing rejection
• matching and physical attractiveness

  • while the matching hypothesis proposes that we match with similarly 'socially desirable' people, over time it has become synonymous with physical attractiveness alone
  • walster referred to these mating choices as 'realistic'
  • we are affected by the chances of having our affection reciprocated
  • in reality, people often settle for mating with someone 'in their own league'
• supporting evidence for matching hypothesis

  Feingold (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 17  studies and found a significant correlation between the perceived attractiveness of actual partners, when rated by independent participants
• evidence that we don't really 'match’ at all + just prefer attractive people

  • Walster et al. (1966) advertised a dance party for new students at the University of Minnesota
  • 177 males and 170 females were selected from the applicants
  • Upon arrival, each person was rated for attractiveness and given a questionnaire to assess specific characteristics.
  • They were told this would help them match with an 'ideal' partner.
  • However, matching was completely random.
  • Participants were then given a questionnaire about their dates.
• walster et al findings

  • Regardless of their own physical attractiveness, people responded more positively to physically attractive partners
  • Other factors, such as personality and intelligence had little to no effect.
• evidence that having the matching hypothesis focus on just physical attractiveness lacks predictive validity.

  • Eastwick and Finkel (2008) suggest that the desire for physical attractiveness does not predict real-life partner choice.
  • They supported this claim using evidence from speed dating and a longitudinal follow-up.
  • Prior to speed dating, people showed preferences for physical attractiveness..
  • BUT this failed to predict the behaviour of participants during the event
  • Participants actual partner preferences reflected both their romantic attraction and the partner's specific characteristics
• led to a less simplistic version of the theory - 'Complex Matching'

  • The belief that matching is much more complex that just physical attractiveness
  • People enter a relationship offering a number of desirable characteristics, and can 'make up for' a lack of attractiveness
  • This is referred to as 'Complex Matching"-
  • This suggests that the matching hypothesis is not based on attractiveness alone.